Legal Document: KATHARYN AZZARELLO vs. UBM ENTERPRISE, INC.

On July 02, 2021 a MOTION TO COMPEL UBM ENTERPRISE, INC DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND COMPEL DEPOSITION - MOTION - COMPEL was filed involving a dispute between Azzarello, Katharyn, and Ubm Enterprise, Inc., for DAMAGES (NON COLLISION) in the District Court of Dallas County.

Preview
FILED
8/24/2023 6:55 PM
JOHN F. WARREN
COUNTY CLERK
DALLAS COUNTY

CAUSE NO. CC-21-02677-A

KATHARYN AZZARELLO,
INDIVIDUALLY, IN THE COUNTY COURT
Plaintiff,

Vv. AT LAW NO.1

UBM ENTERPRISE, INC,

Defendant DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL UBM ENTERPRISE, INC DISCOVERY
RESPONSES AND COMPEL THE ORAL AND VIDEOTA! DEPOSITION OF UBM
ENTEPRISE, INC’S CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COME NOW KATHARYN AZZARELLO, Plaintiff in the above-numbered and styled

cause, and files her Motion to Compel UBM Enterprise, Inc Discovery Responses and Compel

The Oral And Videotaped Deposition Of UBM Enterprise, Inc’s Corporate Representative and

would show this Honorable Court as follows:

BACKGROUND

This action arises from injuries Plaintiff received as a result of an incident that occurred on

or about August 04, 2020 in Dallas County, Texas, whereby Plaintiff fell on a marble floor, which

was made wet by Defendant while cleaning, and sustained head trauma and orthopedic injuries as

a result.

In addition to document discovery, Plaintiff seeks to take the deposition of Defendant’s

corporate representative on general topics, which Defendant will not agree to. For these reasons

Plaintiff
has filed this Motion to Compel.

The topics Plaintiff seeks a corporate representative deposition is as follows:

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL Page 1
Insurance related to the claims at issue (Plaintiff specifically wants to confirm the limits
of all insurance policies, including umbrella/excess, that Defendant has that covers the
claims at issue).
The facts surrounding the incident at issue;
The standard of care related to floor cleaning duties;
Hiring, retention, supervising, and training the employee at issue;
Defendants documents and discovery responses related to the incident at issue.

SPECIFIC ITEMS FROM DISCOVERY REQUESTS.

FOR DEFENDANT UBM ENTERPRISE, INC.

First Set of Interrogatories:

e 1(insurance),
e 9 (whereabouts/contact info for Diana Valle)

First Request for Production:

1 (insurance),
2 (contracts),
3, 19 (root cause analysis/communication),
4 (subsequent remedial measures),
5 (witness statements),
6 (photographs, movies, video, surveillance etc.),
7 (work logs and internal records related to incident),
8 (employees working near the incident),
9 (warnings),
10 (policy, procedure, training manuals),
11(employee file, limited to listed items, for employee involved in incident),
12 (memos between Def and insurer related to incident),
13 (all records obtained by Def about Plaintiff),
14, 17 (documents gathered using authorization, DWQ),
15 (criminal records),
18 (all surveillance video of Plaintiff),
20 (contracts between Def and landowner related to premise for date of the incident)

EXHIBITS ATTACHED

Exhibit 1: DEFENDANTS UBM ENTERPRISE, INC RESPONSES AND COMPEL
OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND
FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL Page 2
ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES

The purpose of discovery is to seek the truth, so disputes may be decided by what facts

are revealed, not by what facts are concealed. Axelson, Inc. v. Mcllhany, 798 S.W.2d 550, 555

(Tex. 1990). Discovery may be obtained about any matter relevant to the subject matter of the

case. Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(a). Information is discoverable as long as it appears “reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” /d.

Plaintiff's discovery requests to Defendants are reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence and are not otherwise objectionable.

PRAYER

For these reasons, Plaintiffs ask the Court to set this motion for hearing and, after the

hearing, to compel Defendants to file adequate responses to Plaintiff's discovery, and all other

relief that the Plaintiffs may be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

TED B. LYON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

By: /s) Richard Maww
TED B. LYON
tblyon@tedlyon.com
State Bar No. 12741500
RICHARD MANN
rmann@tedlyon.com
State Bar No. 24079640
Town East Tower, Suite 525
18601 Lyndon B. Johnson Freeway
Mesquite, Texas 75150-5632
972.279.6571 (Telephone)
972.279.3021 (Facsimile)
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL Page 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on Aug. 24, 2023 a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's
Motion to Compel forwarded to all known counsel of record in accordance with Rule 21a of the
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure as follows:

J. Brantley Saunders Via Eservice
Tiffany L. Bacon
Saunders, Walsh & Beard
6850 TPC Drive, Suite 210
McKinney, Texas 75070

/s) Richard Maww
RICHARD MANN

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I certify that a reasonable effort by counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants was
made to resolve the relevant dispute without the necessity of court intervention, and, despite best
efforts, counsel have not been able to resolve the matters presented. Tex. R. Civ. P. 191.2.

/s/ Richard Maww
RICHARD MANN

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL Page 4
Exhibit “1”

Page 1 of 1
Electronically Served
4/15/2022 11:52 AM

CAUSE NO. CC-21-02677-A

KATHARYN AZZARELLO, IN THE COUNTY COURT
INDIVIDUALLY,

Plaintiff,

V. AT LAW NUMBER 1

UMB ENTERPRISE, INC,

Defendant. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF’S
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

TO. Plaintiff, Katharyn Azzarello, by and through her attorneys of record, Ted B. Lyon, Jr.,
Richard Mann and Christy L. Hester, Ted B. Lyon & Associates, P.C., Town East Tower,
Suite 525, 18601 LBJ Freeway, Mesquite, Texas 75150

COMES NOW, Defendant, UBM Enterprise, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant” or “UBM

Enterprise”), and serves its Objections and Answers to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories

pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 197. Defendant reserves the right to supplement and/or

amend these answers in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

I
GENERAL OBJECTIONS

Defendant generally objects to Plaintiff's definitions in which Plaintiff purports to require

Defendant to apply and follow such definitions in providing answers. Defendant objects to such

definitions in their entirety and hereby places Plaintiff on notice that Defendant’s answers will be

made by applying the usual and customary meaning of the words and phrases in accordance with

instructions set forth in the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Defendant expressly rejects any

attempt by Plaintiff to place upon Defendant any duty or obligation not imposed by the TEXAS

RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, as Plaintiff lacks authority to impose such duties. Defendant further

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF’S
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, Page | of 6
objects to Plaintiff's interrogatories pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.6. Plaintiffs

discovery is beyond what is reasonable or necessary with respect to the case, is not reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is clearly intended to increase the

cost and burden of litigation. Additionally, as provided by the Rules, the burden and/or expense

of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the case

and the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues. Subject to the foregoing

general objection, Defendant responds as follows:

IL.
OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY NO. 1: On the day of the incident in question, on or about August
04, 2020, did you or any other person or company have in force and effect policy of insurance (i.e.
liability insurance, umbrella insurance and/or excess policies of liability insurance) that would
cover the type of claim being asserted herein? If so, state:

1 The name of each and every company (including umbrella and excess policies)
that issued a policy of insurance;

What were the policy limits of each and every policy (including umbrella and
excess policies) in effect on the date of the incident; and

The name of the company and each and every policy (including any umbrella or
excess policies) that canceled any insurance coverage within 60 days Prior to the
accident in question.

ANSWER:

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant will produce a copy of
its insurance policy for the applicable time period.

INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify the person(s) and/or entities known by
Defendants to have been the owner(s) of the property at issue at the time of the incident in
questions.

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF’S
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, Page 2 of 6
ANSWER:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it calls for speculation.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, to the best of Defendant’s knowledge
and based on its Service Agreement, the property owner was 5950 Sherry Property, LLC.

INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify the person(s) and/or entities known by
Defendants to have management and/or maintenance responsibilities over the cleaning personnel
where the incident at issue occurred at the time of the incident in question.

ANSWER:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it assumes facts not in evidence.
Defendant objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Defendant’s
knowledge and based on its Service Agreement, the property manager was Tier Property
Management, LLC. The cleaning personnel present in the building at or around the time of the
alleged incident was employed by UBM Enterprise, Inc.

INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identify the person(s) and/or entities known by
Defendants to have the authority/control over the premise at the time the incident in question
occurring.

ANSWER:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it assumes facts not in evidence.
Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it calls for a legal conclusion. Defendant
objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, to the best of Defendant’s
knowledge and based on its Service Agreement, the property owner was 5950 Sherry Property, LLC,
and the property manager was Tier Property Management, LLC. The cleaning personnel present in
the building at or around the time of the alleged incident was employed by UBM Enterprise, Inc.

INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please identify the person(s) and/or entities known by
Defendants to have investigated the incident in question, that is the subject matter of this suit that
occurred at 5950 Sherry Lane, Dallas Texas on or about August 04, 2020, and please identify any
teports they created or witness statements taken.

ANSWER:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overbroad, vague and ambiguous. Defendant
objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is not relevant and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. TRCP 192.3(a); In re CSX
Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 152 (Tex. 2003). Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the
basis that it seeks information that is attorney client privilege and attorney work product.

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF’S
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, Page 3 of 6
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, other than the statements of Craig
Penfold and Maria Tafoya produced by Plaintiff in this action, Defendant is presently unaware of
any other statements pertaining to the alleged incident. Defendant’s investigation and discovery
are ongoing.

INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please identify all incident reports and/or all complaints
from Plaintiff to you about the incident at issue if any.

ANSWER:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overbroad, vague and ambiguous. Defendant
objects to this interrogatory as compound.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant recalls first being
notified of the alleged incident on or about August 7, 2020.

INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify all agents, employees and/or former
employees of Defendants that spoke with Plaintiff about the incident at issue.

ANSWER:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it assumes facts not in evidence.
Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it calls for speculation. Defendant objects
to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. TRCP 192.3(a); In re CSX Corp., 124
S.W.3d 149, 152 (Tex. 2003). Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as seeking
information that is confidential and private information of persons who are not parties to this
lawsuit.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant identifies employee
Diana Valle.

INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Please provide the names of any eyewitnesses to the incident
at issue if known.

ANSWER:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it calls for speculation. Defendant
further objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it assumes facts not in evidence.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant is presently unaware of
any eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. Defendant’s investigation and discovery are ongoing.

INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please provide the name and last known contact information
of the cleaning personnel that cleaned floor immediately before Plaintiff fell.

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF’S
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, Page 4 of 6
ANSWER:
Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it assumes facts not in evidence.
Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as seeking information that is confidential and
private information of persons who are not parties to this lawsuit.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant identifies employee
Diana Valle.

INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Please identity any other complaints of slip and fall incidents
telated to your cleaning activity prior to this incident occurring in the building of incident within
5 years of todays date.

ANSWER:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information that is not
relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. TRCP
192.3(a); In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 152 (Tex. 2003). Defendant objects to this
interrogatory on the basis that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and amounts to a “fishing
expedition.” K Mart Corp. a. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996); Dillard Department
Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S.W.2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995). Defendant objects to this interrogatory as
not reasonably limited in time and scope. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as seeking
information that is confidential and private information of persons who are not parties to this
lawsuit. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is
attorney client privilege and attorney work product.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds that there are
none.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Tiffany L. Bacon
Joshua L. Weems
State Bar No. 24051502
josh@saunderswalsh.com
Tiffany L. Bacon
State Bar No. 24117552
tiffany@saunderswalsh.com

SAUNDERS, WALSH & BEARD
Craig Ranch Professional Plaza
6850 TPC Drive, Suite 210
McKinney, Texas 75070
(214) 919-3555 Telephone
(214) 945-4060 Telecopier

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF’S
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Page 5 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document, Defendant’s
Objections and Answers to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories, was served upon all counsel
of record on this 15th day of April, 2022, via e-file/e-serve pursuant to TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 21 and 21a.

/s/ Tiffany L. Bacon
Tiffany L. Bacon

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF’S
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, Page 6 of 6
VERIFICATION

STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF DALLAS §

Before me, a Notary Public, on this day personally appeared JIMMY OH, Executive Vice

President and authorized representative of UBM Enterprise, Inc., known to me to be the person

whose name is subscribed hereto, who, being by me duly sworn, stated that he has read the

foregoing Defendant UBM Enterprise, Inc.'s Objections and Answers to Plaintiff's First Set of

Interrogatories and states that all responses contained therein are true and correct to the best of his

knowledge and understanding.

o -
N
et, y

JIMM
Executive ice President and
Author) d Represéntative of UBM Enterprise, Inc.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO _ before me by JIMMY OH on

APRIL (BTR 2022.

Ik}
Maria Rodriguez
My Comenaslon Expiren
( [C
Notary Public. State of Texas
oe one 720010066
My Commission Expires:

VERIFICATION OF JIMMY OH FOR DEFENDANT
UBM ENTERPRISE, INC.’S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Page 1 of 1
Electronically Served
4/15/2022 11:52 AM

CAUSE NO. CC-21-02677-A.

KATHARYN AZZARELLO, IN THE COUNTY COURT
INDIVIDUALLY,

Plaintiff,
V. AT LAW NUMBER 1

UMB ENTERPRISE, INC,

Defendant. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

COMES NOW, Defendant, UBM Enterprise, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant” or “UBM

Enterprise”), and serves its Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for

Production pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196. Defendant reserves the right to

supplement and/or amend these responses in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

I
GENERAL OBJECTIONS

Defendant generally objects to Plaintiff's definitions in which Plaintiff purports to require

Defendant to apply and follow such definitions in providing answers. Defendant objects to such

definitions in their entirety and hereby places Plaintiff on notice that Defendant’s responses will

be made by applying the usual and customary meaning of the words and phrases in accordance

with instructions set forth in the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Defendant expressly rejects

any attempt by Plaintiff to place upon Defendant any duty or obligation not imposed by the TEXAS

RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, as Plaintiff lacks authority to impose such duties. Defendant objects

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Page 1 of 10
to Plaintiff's requests pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.6. Plaintiff's discovery is

beyond what is reasonable or necessary with respect to the case, is not reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is clearly intended to increase the cost and burden

of litigation. Additionally, as provided by the Rules, the burden and/or expense of the proposed

discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the case and the importance

of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues. Subject to the foregoing general objection,

Defendant responds as follows:

IL.
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION_1: Produce all policies responsive to Interrogatory 1.

RESPONSE:

Defendant incorporates herein by this reference its objections and responses to Interrogatory
No. 1. Defendant will produce a copy of its insurance policy for the time period applicable to the
alleged incident.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION _2: Produce all contracts and/or documents that reflect
what individual and/or entity had authority and cleaning responsibilities regarding the cleaning of
the floor at issue at issue at the time the incident occurred.

RESPONSE:

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant will produce non-
privileged documents that may be responsive to this request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION_ 3: Produce all documents evidencing all of Defendant’s
internal communications concerning the incident including a root-cause-analysis, if any.

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Page 2 of 10
RESPONSE:

Defendant objects to this request as overbroad, vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects to
this request on the basis it calls for a legal conclusion. Defendant objects to this request on the basis
that it lacks specificity in that it fails to describe with reasonable particularity each requested item
or category. TRCP 196.1(b). Defendant further objects to the extent this request seeks information
that is protected under the attorney client privilege or attorney work product doctrine.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant will produce non-
privileged documents that may be responsive to this request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 4: Produce all documents evidencing subsequent
remedial measure taken after the incident in question occurred to ensure no other people were
injured in the same or similar manner.

RESPONSE:

Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it assumes facts not in evidence. Defendant
objects to this request to the extent its scope is improper and the information requested is
inadmissible pursuant to Texas Rule of Evidence 407. Defendant objects to this request as
overbroad, vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects to this request on the basis it calls for a legal
conclusion. Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it lacks specificity in that it fails to
describe with reasonable particularity each requested item or category. TRCP 196.1(b). Defendant
further objects to the extent this request seeks information that is protected under the attorney client
privilege or attorney work product doctrine.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, after a diligent search, no items
have been identified that are responsive to this request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION _5: Produce all witness statements and/or recording
taken related to this case, including those of Plaintiff, if any.

RESPONSE:

Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it lacks specificity in that it fails to
describe with reasonable particularity each requested item or category. TRCP 196.1(b). Defendant
objects to this request as compound.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant identifies the
statements Plaintiff produced in this matter. After a diligent search, no further items have been
identified that are responsive to this request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 6: Produce all photographs, pictures, motion pictures,
movies, films, or photographic material of any kind concerning, relating to, or depicting the incident
in question, or the events surrounding and related the incident in question limited to date of the
incident in question. Please produce in color as well as in digital format.

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Page 3 of 10
RESPONSE:

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous and compound. Defendant objects
to this request on the basis that it lacks specificity in that it fails to describe with reasonable
particularity each requested item or category. TRCP 196.1(b). Defendant objects to the extent
this request seeks information that is protected under the attorney client privilege or attorney work
product doctrine. Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks production of expert
witness documents and information, which are only attainable through a Request for Disclosure or
deposition.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant identifies the
surveillance videos produced in response to Defendant’s Deposition by Written Questions and
Subpoena Duces Tecum to Cousins Properties. These records are equally available to Plaintiff.
Defendant will further produce non-privileged documents that may be responsive to this request.
Defendant’s investigation and discovery are ongoing.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION _7: Produce all work logs and internal records related to
the incident at issue. If you are claiming privilege, please produce a privilege log.

RESPONSE:

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous and compound. Defendant
specifically objects to the undefined term “internal records” as vague and ambiguous. Defendant
objects to this request on the basis that it lacks specificity in that it fails to describe with reasonable
particularity each requested item or category. TRCP 196.1(b). Defendant objects to the extent
this request seeks information that is protected under the attorney client privilege or attorney work
product doctrine.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant will produce non-
privileged documents that may be responsive to this request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 8: All documents evidencing all employees of
Defendants that were working at or near the location of incident on the date of the incident in
question, including those that spoke with Plaintiff immediately following the incident.

RESPONSE:

Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it assumes facts not in evidence. Defendant
objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it calls for speculation. Defendant objects to this
request as seeking information that is confidential and private information of persons who are not
parties to this lawsuit. Defendant objects to the extent this request seeks information that is
protected under the attorney client privilege or attorney work product doctrine.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant will produce non-
privileged documents responsive to this request.

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Page 4 of 10
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 9: All documents evidencing any warnings given to the
Plaintiff or any tenants similarly situated regarding the area at question.

RESPONSE:

Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it assumes facts not in evidence. Defendant
objects to this request as vague, ambiguous and compound. Defendant further objects to this
request on the basis that it lacks specificity in that it fails to describe with reasonable particularity
each requested item or category. TRCP 196.1(b). Defendant objects to this request on the basis
that it is not limited in time and scope. Defendant objects to this request on the basis it seeks
confidential and private information of an individual. Defendant further objects to this request on
the basis that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and amounts to a “fishing expedition.” K Mart
Corp. a. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant will produce non-
privileged documents responsive to this request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION _10: All documents, including policy and procedure
manuals or any other policy or training material, that outline or relate to Defendant’s policies
and/or procedures and/or training related to the cleaning of the area at issue that were in place at
the time of the incident at issue for Defendants employees and/or agents.

RESPONSE:

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant will produce non-
privileged documents responsive to this request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION _11: Documents evidencing the employee files—limited
to documents reflecting performance issues including all discipline, warnings, resident complaints,
responding to resident complaints, performance evaluations, or internal communication about
performance, and/or termination—for all employees involved in incident at issue.

RESPONSE:

Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it assumes facts not in evidence. Defendant
objects to this request on the basis that it seeks documents that are not relevant and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. TRCP 192.3(a); Jn re CSX Corp., 124

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Page 5 of 10
S.W.3d 149, 152 (Tex. 2003). Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous and
compound. Defendant further objects to this request on the basis that it lacks specificity in that it
fails to describe with reasonable particularity each requested item or category. TRCP 196.1(b).
Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is not limited in time and scope. Defendant
objects to this request on the basis it seeks confidential and private information of an individual.
Defendant further objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome
and amounts to a “fishing expedition.” K Mart Corp. a. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex.
1996).
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 12: All notes, memos, and correspondence between you
and your insurer (both primary insurer and both umbrella insurers) relating to the incident in
question or the insurance coverage that is in your possession constructive or actual.

RESPONSE:

Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it seeks documents that are not relevant
and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. TRCP 192.3(a); In
re CSX Corp., 124 8.W.3d 149, 152 (Tex. 2003). Defendant objects to this request as vague,
ambiguous and compound. Defendant further objects to this request on the basis that it lacks
specificity in that it fails to describe with reasonable particularity each requested item or category.
TRCP 196.1(b). Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is not limited in time and
scope. Defendant objects to this request on the basis it seeks confidential and private information
of an individual. Defendant further objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad,
unduly burdensome and amounts to a “fishing expedition.” K Mart Corp. a. Sanderson, 937
S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996). Defendant further objects to the extent this request seeks
information that is protected under the attorney client privilege or attorney work product doctrine
and/or other applicable privilege.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 13: All records concerning Plaintiff, including medical
tecords and medical billing records, that have been obtained by Defendants in this case.

RESPONSE:

Defendant objects to this request as overbroad, vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects to
the extent this request seeks information that is protected under the attorney client privilege or
attorney work product doctrine. Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks production
of expert witness documents and information, which are only attainable through a Request for
Disclosure or deposition.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant identifies the
surveillance videos produced in response to Defendant’s Deposition by Written Questions and
Subpoena Duces Tecum to Cousins Properties. These records are equally available to Plaintiff.
Defendant further identifies the documents produced in response to these requests for production
and those records produced by Plaintiff in this matter.

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Page 6 of 10
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 14: All documents that have been gathered by
Defendants using any authorizations provided to Defendants by Plaintiff.

RESPONSE:

Defendant objects to this request as overbroad, vague and ambiguous and that such
documents would be equally available to Plaintiff.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant will produce non-
privileged documents responsive to this request if and when received. However, Defendant’s
records request are presently the subject of Plaintiff's motion to quash.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 15: Produce copies of any criminal records pertaining to
any party or witness in this lawsuit, that you have in your possession, custody, care or control or
that you intend to use at the trial of this matter.

RESPONSE:

Defendant objects to this request to the extent it requires Defendant to marshal all of its
evidence that may be offered at trial and on the basis it exceeds the scope of permissible discovery.
Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it seeks documents that are not relevant and not
teasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. TRCP 192.3(a); In re CSX
Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 152 (Tex. 2003). Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous
and compound. Defendant further objects to this request on the basis that it lacks specificity in
that it fails to describe with reasonable particularity each requested item or category. TRCP
196.1(b).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, after a diligent search, no items
have been identified that are responsive to this request. Defendant’s investigation and discovery
are ongoing.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 16: Produce all indemnification agreements between
Defendants and/or any non-party relevant to the incident in question.

RESPONSE:

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant will produce non-
privileged documents responsive to this request.

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Page 7 of 10
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 17: Produce copies of all documents obtained by you
through DWQ in this case. Please supplement when obtained.

RESPONSE:

Defendant identifies the surveillance videos produced in response to Defendant’s
Deposition by Written Questions and Subpoena Duces Tecum to Cousins Properties. These
records are equally available to Plaintiff. Defendant’s investigation and discovery are ongoing.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 18: Produce copies of any and all surveillance video
taken of Plaintiff from the time of the incident at issue to the date of trial.

RESPONSE:

Defendant objects to this request as overbroad, vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects
to this request on the basis that it lacks specificity in that it fails to describe with reasonable
particularity each requested item or category. TRCP 196.1(b). Defendant objects to the extent
this request seeks information that is protected under the attorney client privilege or attorney work
product doctrine. Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks production of expert
witness documents and information, which are only attainable through a Request for Disclosure or
deposition. Defendant further objects to this request as it requires Defendant to marshal all of its
evidence that may be offered at trial and on the basis that it exceeds the scope of permissible
discovery.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 19: Produce copies of any root cause analysis or incident
reports created by any Defendant or associated entity in this case related to the incident at issue.

RESPONSE:

Defendant objects to this request as overbroad, vague and ambiguous, and compound.
Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks production of expert witness documents and
information, which are only attainable through a Request for Disclosure or deposition. Defendant
objects to this request on the basis it calls for a legal conclusion. Defendant further objects to this
request as it requires Defendant to marshal all of its evidence that may be offered at trial and on
the basis that it exceeds the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant objects to this request on
the basis that it lacks specificity in that it fails to describe with reasonable particularity each
requested item or category. TRCP 196.1(b). Defendant objects to the extent this request seeks
information that is protected under the attorney client privilege or attorney work product doctrine.

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Page 8 of 10
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, after a diligent search, no items
have been identified that are responsive to this request. Defendant’s investigation and discovery
are ongoing.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 20: Produce copies of all contracts between you and the
landowner related to the building and/or premise at issue that was in force on the date at issue that
gave you authority to be on the premise and clean the floor at issue.

RESPONSE:

Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it seeks documents that are not relevant
and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. TRCP 192.3(a); In
re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 152 (Tex. 2003). Defendant objects to this request as vague and
ambiguous. Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it lacks specificity in that it fails to
describe with reasonable particularity each requested item or category. TRCP 196.1(b).
Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and
amounts to a “fishing expedition.” K Mart Corp. a. Sanderson, 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996);
Dillard Department Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S.W.2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995). Defendant objects to
this request on the basis that it is not limited in time and scope. Defendant further objects to this
request on the basis it seeks confidential and private information and to the extent it seeks
proprietary and trade secret information.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant identifies its Service
Agreement produced in response to these requests.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Tiffany L. Bacon
Joshua L. Weems
State Bar No. 24051502
josh@saunderswalsh.com
Tiffany L. Bacon
State Bar No. 24117552
tiffany@saunderswalsh.com

SAUNDERS, WALSH & BEARD
Craig Ranch Professional Plaza
6850 TPC Drive, Suite 210
McKinney, Texas 75070
(214) 919-3555 Telephone
(214) 945-4060 Telecopier

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Page 9 of 10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document, Defendant’s
Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production, was served upon all counsel
of record on this 15th day of April, 2022, via e-file/e-serve pursuant to TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 21 and 21a.

/s/ Tiffany L. Bacon
Tiffany L. Bacon

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Case Info

Judge

BENSON, D'METRIA Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

August 24, 2023

Case Filing Date

July 02, 2021

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Document for KATHARYN AZZARELLO vs. UBM ENTERPRISE, INC.

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties